You can also add Guild Wars 2 and League of Legends to your list. That's pretty much it. What does it say about an industry when it only has 10 or so success stories?
As I said this is misleading because there aren't many online games of this nature to begin with.
I don't think it was a coincidence that he resigned less than 2 weeks after SimCity's failed launch.
That's actually exactly what it sounds like. Imagine if all CEOs resigned because a single product had a rocky launch? CEOs would have a higher turnover rate than fast food places
There have been over 200 MMO's released since 2000, with only a handful of successes. Feel free to check out a full list here.
And I believe SimCity was the last straw for shareholders. SWTOR was already a huge flop, Sim Social ended up failing, and they had a huge PR mess with SimCity.
“I have not green lit one game to be developed as a single player experience. Today, all of our games include online applications and digital services that make them live 24/7/365.”
Making them live 24/7/365 means persistent online connection. This was 2 years ago when Sims 4 was in development.
When someone resigns 2 weeks after an astonishing amount of negative press and being named Worst Company in America x2 in a row, you can bet it was because of that.
Requiring an online connection is not the same thing as being an online game.
Now you're essentially just putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "lalalalalalala". Give it a rest.
@JoeWow1003Ummm yes it does! If I have to be connected to the internet all day every day every single day of the year to play a game means its an online game!
Now you're essentially just putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "lalalalalalala". Give it a rest.
No. Steam and Origin require an internet connection but all of their games are not "online games." In fact I'm pretty sure many games are now putting "Internet connection required" on their system requirement specs even though they aren't online games.
@JoeWow1003Ummm yes it does! If I have to be connected to the internet all day every day every single day of the year to play a game means its an online game!
It really isn't worthwhile to 'discuss' anything with that guy. He just disagrees with everything you say, even when the resto of the world is aware of something, if he admits it, he will just presume to say why you are still wrong.
To anyone bashing us who are complaining about the game, there is a reason we are complaining. We want the game were paying for, not a bait and switch. As someone who is intent on buying it and have it preordered, the 70 dollars I giving EA means I feel I should be heard at least on one or two points of concern.
And if that doesn't sink in then listen to this:
"Gosh I'm so tired of divisive exchange. And I have one or two things to say about change. Like the change we must change, to the change we hold dear. I really like change. Have I made myself clear?"
- Jib Jab
It really isn't worthwhile to 'discuss' anything with that guy. He just disagrees with everything you say, even when the resto of the world is aware of something, if he admits it, he will just presume to say why you are still wrong.
Wow. Well, about pools, I have a feeling it has to do with the engine that they are using. As people have said, there isn't too much information about it, but as was mentioned, it would also explain terrain tools. I have a feeling it is about how the games run and how the sims navigate. The terrain doesn't both me personally so much but I feel like it should be an option and I know a lot of builders who are deeply upset about it. I think pools may actually be a challenge for them because of the engine they decided to go with. Doesn't mean it's right, but it seems to explain some things.
Now you're essentially just putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "lalalalalalala". Give it a rest.
No. Steam and Origin require an internet connection but all of their games are not "online games." In fact I'm pretty sure many games are now putting "Internet connection required" on their system requirement specs even though they aren't online games.
@JoeWow1003Ummm yes it does! If I have to be connected to the internet all day every day every single day of the year to play a game means its an online game!
#whatswrongwithyou
No. That's really not what it means.
Name them.
I don't know what logic you are using when you consider "open servers" alone to be an indication of success. If a big-name MMO goes free-to-play and only has few thousand players, would that be a success just because the servers haven't closed?
You were pretending that the Sims Online was a success, when it only had a few thousand players for years, and EA themselves admit it was a flop. Going free-to-play from a subscription model is usually considered the point of "failure" in the MMO world. And most MMO's have done just that, while simultaneously ending game updates and laying off most of their employees.
It really isn't worthwhile to 'discuss' anything with that guy. He just disagrees with everything you say, even when the resto of the world is aware of something, if he admits it, he will just presume to say why you are still wrong.
I don't know what logic you are using when you consider "open servers" alone to be an indication of success. If a big-name MMO goes free-to-play and only has few thousand players, would that be a success just because the servers haven't closed?
What's your measurement of a successful online game then? Granted I didn't run any of these games or companies but it seems highly unlikely they would keep a game open too long once it starts losing money.
I don't know what logic you are using when you consider "open servers" alone to be an indication of success. If a big-name MMO goes free-to-play and only has few thousand players, would that be a success just because the servers haven't closed?
What's your measurement of a successful online game then? Granted I didn't run any of these games or companies but it seems highly unlikely they would keep a game open too long once it starts losing money.
If you consider those 4 games to be "successes" then you are grasping at straws, sorry.
When a AAA gaming company decides to spend 100 million dollars on an online game, do you think they're pointing to City of Heroes, a low budget MMO with a low-population playerbase, as their example of success? Give me a break.
To consider an MMO successful, it needs to have a large population of players, and the revenue to warrant future updates and maintenance. Having 1 server up that supports 1000 players is not success. People run those types of servers out of their garage.
if pool's we're hard to put in the game then toddler's we're as well...along with many other things (just kidding) but it doe's make me wonder...hmm...
Don't forget Ultima Online 1997. Granted it was made under Origin then bought by EA. Still 17 years for an MMO is a bit amazing. Its been subscription the entire time.
Having 1 server up that supports 1000 players is not success. People run those types of servers out of their garage.
I'm really not sure what your definition of "success" is.
Minecraft was built by one person out of his home and that's a success story if I ever heard one.
There are a lot of indie game developers who do very well for themselves and they make games out of their garages.
You do realize that we're talking about EA, a AAA developer, not some low-budget korean developer. Go to an EA shareholder meeting and tell them that a few thousand players is successful. They'd laugh in your face.
Low-budget MMO's with a few thousand players cannot be used as examples of success, the same way that EA doesn't compare FIFA to Windows Solitaire.
Keeping 1 server up for 1000 players is not a metric to be proud of. Note that I also said updates and maintenance. That includes staff that develop new content, not just paying for the electricity in their data warehouse. If your "maintenance" only consists of keeping 1 server up and developing no new content, you're not playing with the big dogs.
You do realize that we're talking about EA, a AAA developer, not some low-budget korean developer. Go to an EA shareholder meeting and tell them that a few thousand players is successful. They'd laugh in your face.
Low-budget MMO's with a few thousand players cannot be used as examples of success, the same way that EA doesn't compare FIFA to Windows Solitaire.
Why can't they be? Everything is to scale, of course.
Yes. EA pouring in millions of dollars to develop an online game expecting a target audience of 1000 isn't going to happen.
Of course EA would be expecting a much larger target audience because their game has a much larger budget.
I would also like to note that you're the one who provided that list of games as evidence of "failures" and now you're saying those games don't count because they didn't have a large enough budget to be comparable to a game EA would make.
Alright then let's try this again; name AAA developer online games with a large budget that flopped.
Having 1 server up that supports 1000 players is not success. People run those types of servers out of their garage.
I'm really not sure what your definition of "success" is.
Minecraft was built by one person out of his home and that's a success story if I ever heard one.
There are a lot of indie game developers who do very well for themselves and they make games out of their garages.
Did Minecraft cost 50 or 100 million dollars to develop? Does Minecraft staff over one hundred employees dedicated to content creation? No? Then why would you use it in the same sentence as big-name developers and games.
Remember, we were talking about a big AAA franchise, the Sims. Not facebook games or games with 1000 players.
You do realize that we're talking about EA, a AAA developer, not some low-budget korean developer. Go to an EA shareholder meeting and tell them that a few thousand players is successful. They'd laugh in your face.
Low-budget MMO's with a few thousand players cannot be used as examples of success, the same way that EA doesn't compare FIFA to Windows Solitaire.
Why can't they be? Everything is to scale, of course.
Yes. EA pouring in millions of dollars to develop an online game expecting a target audience of 1000 isn't going to happen.
Of course EA would be expecting a much larger target audience because their game has a much larger budget.
I would also like to note that you're the one who provided that list of games as evidence of "failures" and now you're saying those games don't count because they didn't have a large enough budget to be comparable to a game EA would make.
Alright then let's try this again; name AAA developer online games with a large budget that flopped.
Those are all games that had high budgets, couldn't maintain players, went free-to-play, gutted their staff, and either stopped updates entirely or kept them to a bare minimum. Remember, box sales are meaningless if all the players leave.
You can pretend that these games are successes because they still maintain tiny populations, but like I said before, try telling a shareholder how "successful" they are, and see what they say.
There are only 2 MMOs right now that are maintaining high populations, and which make enough revenue to keep a full staff developing content updates.
Remember, the whole point of this argument was you saying that EA had no reason to stop production on the online version of the Sims 4. Because online games are such a success and there'd be no rational reason to cancel development on one. Comparing the Sims franchise to City of Heroes and Minecraft doesn't really do your argument any favors.
Remember, the whole point of this argument was you saying that EA had no reason to stop production on the online version of the Sims 4.
No the whole point of this argument was there is no evidence that Sims 4 was ever online and that if it was supposed to be online they wouldn't just scrap all of those years of work and start over.
You have even gone out of your way to try and prove that online games aren't successful, so why would EA try such a risky move with one of their most popular franchises?
Remember, the whole point of this argument was you saying that EA had no reason to stop production on the online version of the Sims 4.
No the whole point of this argument was there is no evidence that Sims 4 was ever online and that if it was supposed to be online they wouldn't just scrap all of those years of work and start over.
You have even gone out of your way to try and prove that online games aren't successful, so why would EA try such a risky move with one of their most popular franchises?
Why would they try such a risky move? Because making every EA game a persistent online experience was the old CEO's mission statement. And has it occurred to you that maybe the horrible track record for online games is one of the reasons why they changed direction?
There is plenty of evidence that the game was intended to be online. You just decided to ignore all of it. Former employees have said it, we have screenshots of the online game from YEARS ago with Sims 4 Sims. It's hard to argue that those were doctored images when they got the sim design and hairstyles exactly right, long before we even knew what the Sims looked like. The lead producer was a champion of online facebook/mobile games, and the signs are everywhere when looking at the game itself.
No, Graham will never go out and publicly admit that it was an online game, so we'll never be 100% sure. But common sense should play a part here.
When pools do come back, I expect them to be way better than TS3 or even TS2 for that matter. TS2 had a ton of pool objects such as the diving board and pool slide, pool games such as Marco Polo, and nice effects such as when your Sim jumped in, the water would actually move up and down, compared to the stagnant way TS3 pools were.
They'll be way worse.
Given the rather limited new engine, they'll likely be avove-the-ground only.
It's unlikely we will build our own. They'll be objects, most likely one piece, and, if tbey make an effort, modular pieces.
When pools do come back, I expect them to be way better than TS3 or even TS2 for that matter. TS2 had a ton of pool objects such as the diving board and pool slide, pool games such as Marco Polo, and nice effects such as when your Sim jumped in, the water would actually move up and down, compared to the stagnant way TS3 pools were.
They'll be way worse.
Given the rather limited new engine, they'll likely be avove-the-ground only.
It's unlikely we will build our own. They'll be objects, most likely one piece, and, if tbey make an effort, modular pieces.
Comments
There have been over 200 MMO's released since 2000, with only a handful of successes. Feel free to check out a full list here.
And I believe SimCity was the last straw for shareholders. SWTOR was already a huge flop, Sim Social ended up failing, and they had a huge PR mess with SimCity.
Now you're essentially just putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "lalalalalalala". Give it a rest.
#whatswrongwithyou
Ah, I didn't realize by "recently" you were going back to 2000.
I'm also curious as to what you consider a "success." Just a quick glance over the list and I saw several games with open servers for 6+ years.
No. Steam and Origin require an internet connection but all of their games are not "online games." In fact I'm pretty sure many games are now putting "Internet connection required" on their system requirement specs even though they aren't online games.
No. That's really not what it means.
@Gtompkins48 & @Logisitcs
It really isn't worthwhile to 'discuss' anything with that guy. He just disagrees with everything you say, even when the resto of the world is aware of something, if he admits it, he will just presume to say why you are still wrong.
complete forum tutorial
Thank you @MDianaSanders for halloween-fying Golluma
And if that doesn't sink in then listen to this:
"Gosh I'm so tired of divisive exchange. And I have one or two things to say about change. Like the change we must change, to the change we hold dear. I really like change. Have I made myself clear?"
- Jib Jab
And you've been flagging my posts for trolling.
Too funny
Name them.
I don't know what logic you are using when you consider "open servers" alone to be an indication of success. If a big-name MMO goes free-to-play and only has few thousand players, would that be a success just because the servers haven't closed?
You were pretending that the Sims Online was a success, when it only had a few thousand players for years, and EA themselves admit it was a flop. Going free-to-play from a subscription model is usually considered the point of "failure" in the MMO world. And most MMO's have done just that, while simultaneously ending game updates and laying off most of their employees.
I'm #done lol
You're not aware of the successful games on the list you provided?
City of Heroes 8 years
City of Villains 9 years
Star Wars Galaxies 8 years
Toontown Online 10 years
Most of them don't have close dates and I'm much too lazy to put too much effort into this
What's your measurement of a successful online game then? Granted I didn't run any of these games or companies but it seems highly unlikely they would keep a game open too long once it starts losing money.
If you consider those 4 games to be "successes" then you are grasping at straws, sorry.
When a AAA gaming company decides to spend 100 million dollars on an online game, do you think they're pointing to City of Heroes, a low budget MMO with a low-population playerbase, as their example of success? Give me a break.
To consider an MMO successful, it needs to have a large population of players, and the revenue to warrant future updates and maintenance. Having 1 server up that supports 1000 players is not success. People run those types of servers out of their garage.
Well that's a fine how do ya do! If I point to a game that's successful you just come along and say that game doesn't count.
I guess I can't win this then can I?
Why is this a requirement?
This I agree with. So if a game isn't bringing in the revenue how are they managing to keep their servers up for many years?
I'm really not sure what your definition of "success" is.
Minecraft was built by one person out of his home and that's a success story if I ever heard one.
There are a lot of indie game developers who do very well for themselves and they make games out of their garages.
You do realize that we're talking about EA, a AAA developer, not some low-budget korean developer. Go to an EA shareholder meeting and tell them that a few thousand players is successful. They'd laugh in your face.
Low-budget MMO's with a few thousand players cannot be used as examples of success, the same way that EA doesn't compare FIFA to Windows Solitaire.
Keeping 1 server up for 1000 players is not a metric to be proud of. Note that I also said updates and maintenance. That includes staff that develop new content, not just paying for the electricity in their data warehouse. If your "maintenance" only consists of keeping 1 server up and developing no new content, you're not playing with the big dogs.
Why can't they be? Everything is to scale, of course.
Yes. EA pouring in millions of dollars to develop an online game expecting a target audience of 1000 isn't going to happen.
Of course EA would be expecting a much larger target audience because their game has a much larger budget.
I would also like to note that you're the one who provided that list of games as evidence of "failures" and now you're saying those games don't count because they didn't have a large enough budget to be comparable to a game EA would make.
Alright then let's try this again; name AAA developer online games with a large budget that flopped.
Did Minecraft cost 50 or 100 million dollars to develop? Does Minecraft staff over one hundred employees dedicated to content creation? No? Then why would you use it in the same sentence as big-name developers and games.
Remember, we were talking about a big AAA franchise, the Sims. Not facebook games or games with 1000 players.
SWTOR. TERA. Warhammer. Rift. SimCity. Secret World. Vanguard.
Those are all games that had high budgets, couldn't maintain players, went free-to-play, gutted their staff, and either stopped updates entirely or kept them to a bare minimum. Remember, box sales are meaningless if all the players leave.
You can pretend that these games are successes because they still maintain tiny populations, but like I said before, try telling a shareholder how "successful" they are, and see what they say.
There are only 2 MMOs right now that are maintaining high populations, and which make enough revenue to keep a full staff developing content updates.
Remember, the whole point of this argument was you saying that EA had no reason to stop production on the online version of the Sims 4. Because online games are such a success and there'd be no rational reason to cancel development on one. Comparing the Sims franchise to City of Heroes and Minecraft doesn't really do your argument any favors.
No the whole point of this argument was there is no evidence that Sims 4 was ever online and that if it was supposed to be online they wouldn't just scrap all of those years of work and start over.
You have even gone out of your way to try and prove that online games aren't successful, so why would EA try such a risky move with one of their most popular franchises?
Why would they try such a risky move? Because making every EA game a persistent online experience was the old CEO's mission statement. And has it occurred to you that maybe the horrible track record for online games is one of the reasons why they changed direction?
There is plenty of evidence that the game was intended to be online. You just decided to ignore all of it. Former employees have said it, we have screenshots of the online game from YEARS ago with Sims 4 Sims. It's hard to argue that those were doctored images when they got the sim design and hairstyles exactly right, long before we even knew what the Sims looked like. The lead producer was a champion of online facebook/mobile games, and the signs are everywhere when looking at the game itself.
No, Graham will never go out and publicly admit that it was an online game, so we'll never be 100% sure. But common sense should play a part here.
They'll be way worse.
Given the rather limited new engine, they'll likely be avove-the-ground only.
It's unlikely we will build our own. They'll be objects, most likely one piece, and, if tbey make an effort, modular pieces.
They'll be way worse.
Given the rather limited new engine, they'll likely be avove-the-ground only.
It's unlikely we will build our own. They'll be objects, most likely one piece, and, if tbey make an effort, modular pieces.
There are videos and pictures and official quotes from EA's president.